Kerry *is* to the right on Defense and economy

Post #181,377 by GBert 10/28/04 8:46:01 AM Reply	Kerry is to the right on Defense and economy My impression is that Kerry has been and continues to be rather conservative (in the little "c" sense) on Defense and the economy... he was an early voice behind balancing the budget in the 90's. I believe his "problem" is that he has been an unforgivable pest on several issues very uncomfortable to the power right, from his early showcase opposition to the Vietnam war, to his investigations of Iran-Contra and BCCI scandals. Giovanni Have whatever values you have. That's what America is for. You don't need George Bush for that.
Post #181,411 by bepatient 10/28/04 10:51:02 AM Reply	He hasn't positioned himself there. He has positioned himself early and often as a purveyor of big government spending programs ("I have a plan to save x, to fix Y and to satisfy Z"), he is now and was in the early 90s and also in the early 70s anti-military. His budget balancing act came at the expense of intel and military spending. These are not centrist position in their details, only on their face. This is the perception. You may believe it false in the detail (and some may actually be)...but again...unless you change people's perception during the campaign, that perception becomes your reality. I know conversations like this tickle those in other countries that see all of this as 2 versions of the same thing...simply because they have >real< choices...but in US politics over the last couple of decades...Bush and Kerry are about as wide as the choice has been in a while, at least on the surface. This is unfortunate for the Democrats in this election..because I think they could have easily won had they picked a different candidate..even simply flipping the ticket. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #181,525 by GBert 10/28/04 4:10:59 PM Reply	Re: He hasn't positioned himself there. I do agree that Bush and Kerry are about as wide a choice as there has been in a while, but it's not as much of a left-right kind of separation as it is an up-down one. Kerry is certainly not too far to the left to appeal to centrists. There has been a concerted effort to paint him as a morally indecisive liberal elitist intellectual, but that is just the silvering behind a carefully crafted mirror intended to reflect Bush's image as the opposite (and better) choice in every respect. I think the smoke and mirrors have very little to do with Kerry's actual fitness to command or political posture, and even less with Bush's. To suggest the Dems could have reduced the quality of the GOP's negative portrayal of their candidate by choosing a different person is as disingenuous as suggesting that Saddam could have averted the war by letting the UN inspectors in. Bush and Kerry are about as wide as the choice has been in a while, at least on the surface. This is unfortunate for the Democrats in this election..because I think they could have easily won had they picked a different candidate..even simply flipping the ticket. Have whatever values you have. That's what America is for. You don't need George Bush for that.
Post #181,542 by bepatient 10/28/04 4:58:30 PM Reply	Not fitness for purpose. Its his history that has allowed this Repo smear tactic to work. He can't fight back against it without being blatant. His anti-Vietnam activity is too prevalent for him to now say he's "pro-war"...>that< plays into the "flip-flop" argument. Someone with less baggage would have had a better chance. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #181,572 by GBert 10/28/04 8:01:03 PM Reply	Do you really believe that? Do you really believe that the "group of folks" running Bush's campaign would have given someone with "less baggage" more of a break in the covering-with-slime area? I don't believe that for a second. And when a candidate can weather the shitstorm and come out the other side looking like a silver dollar to the other guys wooden nickel (and he did, especially during the three debates) it makes you respect him all the more. The whiney flip-flopping indecisive one with the reeking baggage is not the Democrat. Giovanni Have whatever values you have. That's what America is for. You don't need George Bush for that.
Post #181,576 by Simon_Jester 10/28/04 8:32:03 PM Reply	Support and Counter-argument Support: Howard Dean was attacked maliciously for his yell. Not very Presidential. (But the finger is? I've yet to see one right-wing talk show host talk about Bush giving the bird) Counter-Argument: Dean was voted out by Democrats, not Republicans. There are elements, even within the Democratic Party, that are broken. Kerry's nomination is, imho, one of those elements.
Post #181,582 by bepatient 10/28/04 8:45:59 PM Reply	Slightly different approach Do you really believe that the "group of folks" running Bush's campaign would have given someone with "less baggage" more of a break in the covering-with-slime area? Not for a second. I think it would have been less likely to >stick< to someone else. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #181,573 by daemon 10/28/04 8:02:33 PM Reply	the Hanoi Jane backlash, hard to overcome that way too many Iraqis conceived of free society as little more than a mosh pit with grenades. ANDISHEH NOURAEE

Welcome to IWETHEY!